Breaking Down the Latest Steps Toward a 2020 MLB Season

[Nick Nelson]

It's now been about one month since I wrote here that I was giving up on the viability of a 2020 MLB season of record (and John disagreed.) Since then, some things have changed, and others have not.

 

Given the flurry of recent developments and revelations, this feels like a good time to reassess the situation.Last week, former Twin (and 2020 Winter Meltdown guest) Trevor Plouffe tweeted that baseball was working toward a spring training reboot on June 10th, with a target of July 1st for Opening Day. Surprisingly, he indicated games would be played at teams' home parks.

 

 

Plouffe later added that players in six different organizations had relayed this information to him. Then, over the past weekend, Ken Rosenthal filed a story for The Athletic detailing MLB's plan to return. Here's the framework he shared:

• An ~80 game season beginning in early July.
• Regionalized schedule, with games being played only against teams from the same division (or same interleague division).
• Expanded playoffs, with seven instead of five entrants from each league.
• Teams opening in "as many home parks as possible," with those that are unable relocating to spring training parks or other MLB stadiums.

In other words, Plouffe's scoop has been more or less verified by the top baseball reporter in the country. Good on ya, Trevor. But Rosenthal was careful to caution that these plans are far from solidified. He opened his article by stating "Nothing is official," and ended it by calling this arrangement "a preferred blueprint."

 

Significant hurdles remain, including testing capacity, full endorsement from medical communities, relaxing of regional restrictions, and creation of a feasible protocol in response to a positive test. Still, the gears now in motion support John's counterpoint stance from last month: a 2020 baseball season is going to happen, because there's too much money at stake for it not to happen.

 

In a twist of irony, however, it turns out one of John's core premises in the article – "This is not a negotiation between the MLB and MLBPA" – may have been a bit overly optimistic. And therein lies a new and problematic sticking point.

 

One of the provisions cited by Rosenthal was that, given a lack of ticket revenue, "the players would be asked to accept a further reduction in pay." Subsequent reports (along with common sense) suggest this request will not be met warmly. NBC Sports indicated the proposed stipulation is "sitting terribly with players," who felt they already had a good-faith agreement in place. One source opined that there is "going to be a war" if MLB demands further pay cuts.

 

I can see both sides of this, but lean far more toward the players' grievance: they're going above and beyond to do their jobs, while assuming all the risk, and would hardly be sucking dry the coffers of billionaire owners receiving huge TV revenues. Why should they have to make this concession?

 

But it doesn't matter what I think, or anyone else on the outside for that matter. If owners don't see a clearly beneficial bottom-line calculation, they aren't going to keep pushing. And the same goes for players, who conversely have many other implications to factor in beyond finances.

 

Whereas money was supposed to be the mighty uniter and motivator in this scenario, it may be driving an immovable wedge at a crucial moment, preventing the league from even being able to even seriously explore the extreme logistical barriers that would be confronted following an agreement.

 

My position has never been that baseball will not be played in 2020, but rather that it doesn't make sense to push for a season of record. My reasoning has been based on two fundamental issues (beyond all the practical pitfalls in simply making it happen):

• If we're playing a shortened schedule in eerily quiet spring training stadiums, with reconfigured divisions, is it even worth trying to compete toward an official result in MLB's annals?
• If a considerable portion of players are opting out of this arrangement, is it even fair to try and hold a season as normal, with rosters unevenly affected and huge stars potentially absent?

The new proposal hinted by Plouffe and elaborated upon by Rosenthal does serve to alleviate my first concern; I could get down with an 80-game season, with an altered schedule that still remains generally true to the existing divisional structures. But rising tensions around pay cuts only further accentuate the second concern; if MLB owners remain deadset on this demand, I have to assume that – at best – they'll get partial participation.

 

In that scenario, baseball can still happen. And I'd be giddy to see it, provided they find a way that's safe and responsible. But should an official MLB season be played, in the guise of naming a 2020 champion and staying true to the game's historical legacy? I still say no.

 

Regardless, it's definitely encouraging to see orchestrated efforts underway and formal plans taking shape. We should have a clearer picture of the path ahead by midweek, as Rosenthal's timeline called for a formal proposal being presented to players on Tuesday.

 

MORE FROM TWINS DAILY

— Latest Twins coverage from our writers

— Recent Twins discussion in our forums

— Follow Twins Daily via Twitter, Facebook or email

 

Click here to view the article

[mikelink45]

Just keep the schedule and play what is left.  Make it simple.Pay the players for games played. Keep it simple.  

[John Bonnes]

I'll give a quick two cents:

 

1) The players' union has full vision to MLB's books, so they know how much of the revenue is affected by not having crowds at the games, so there shouldn't be any guessing. (Estimates are it's 1/4 to 1/3 of the revenues.) There can be a lot of sword-rattling at this point, but when they get the final proposal, I'm guessing it'll include everyone getting about 35-40% of their original salary, and the union will vote up or down on it, and it'll pass. 

 

2) As for the legitimacy, the proof will be in the pudding. It'll come back with great pomp and circumstance (especially if the start is timed with 4th of July) and it sounds like it won't be alone, as soccer, golf and other sports are firing up, too. People will be pumped. It'll be weird with no crowds, but it might include some breakthrough broadcast ideas, too.

 

I'll be shocked if many players opt out, though I don't know how to define "many." Maybe 1-2 per team? And it won't be all the superstars - it'll be those who are legit worried about the health of someone in their family due to high risks. 

 

Regardless, the fans of the expected good team that sucks will decry the legitimacy, but the competing teams's fan bases will be just fine with it all. So will the players and teams themselves. 

[twinfan]

I still don't see why they cannot allow maybe 2-4 fans per row while wearing masks. People go shopping, etc. so spacing fans out could work. Anyway, it will be interesting to see if the ballplayers will want to play. The season will deserve an asterisk anyway.

[Major League Ready]

 

 

I can see both sides of this, but lean far more toward the players' grievance: they're going above and beyond to do their jobs, while assuming all the risk, and would hardly be sucking dry the coffers of billionaire owners receiving huge TV revenues. Why should they have to make this concession?

But it doesn't matter what I think, or anyone else on the outside for that matter. If owners don't see a clearly beneficial bottom-line calculation, they aren't going to keep pushing. And the same goes for players, who conversely have many other implications to factor in beyond finances.

 

 

It does not sound to me like you see both sides at all.  The Twins TV contract is under $40M/year. That won’t even cover costs for non-player employees, coaches, and other operating costs much less player costs. Most teams are going to lose a bundle without gate receipts if players demand full compensation.  So, if you want to see baseball, you better hope players decide they are willing to get compensated based on this new reality.

[Nick Nelson]

 

It does not sound to me like you see both sides at all.  The Twins TV contract is under $40M/year. That won’t even cover costs for non-player employees, coaches, and other operating costs much less player costs. Most teams are going to lose a bundle without gate receipts if players demand full compensation.  So, if you want to see baseball, you better hope players decide they are willing to get compensated based on this new reality.

How many times in the past did the Twins (along with basically every other team) pocket extra revenue amidst a "rebuilding" year, without ever reinvesting that money into future teams? Why can't it swing the other way for a change?

 

I'm dubious of whether teams are actually going to lose money by paying full salaries (there's a lot of distributed national media money you're not accounting for) but even if they do I'm not all that sympathetic. 

[Tomj14]

 

How many times in the past did the Twins (along with basically every other team) pocket extra revenue amidst a "rebuilding" year, without ever reinvesting that money into future teams? Why can't it swing the other way for a change?

 

What does pocket extra revenue mean?

Paying the owners/employees options or bonuses?

Or they just put that money in a MN Twins bank account?

 

Wouldn't that be the same as saying the owners of the restaurants and other businesses that have been forced to close should be fine because they have made money in the past and they should be fine with losing money for as long as the powers that "be" decide the rules of their business?

 

 

[diehardtwinsfan]

I really wonder if given the extremes of the situation that it would be smart to do a one time revenue sharing pool and just split everything in that capacity. I know the owners wouldn't like it, especially the bigger markets with revenue to lose, but this could be the difference between baseball and no baseball, and potentially a way to reach new audiences...

 

I would think at the end of the day that having a season this summer (especially when they aren't sharing with anyone else) should be a huge priority... and given everyone being shut in, far more likely to be on TV... which I'd argue has some long term strategic impact. Right now, I suspect people who wouldn't normally watch baseball would be quite willing to watch it.

[Nick Nelson]

 

What does pocket extra revenue mean?

Paying the owners/employees options or bonuses?

Or they just put that money in a MN Twins bank account?

 

Wouldn't that be the same as saying the owners of the restaurants and other businesses that have been forced to close should be fine because they have made money in the past and they should be fine with losing money for as long as the powers that "be" decide the rules of their business?

The Twins have claimed to operate on a model that calls for investing 51% of revenue into payroll. We all know that wasn't happening from 2012 through 2016 or so (at the very least).

 

You tell me where that money is going. I dunno. I would assume back into the Pohalds' pockets. To my knowledge it didn't go to employees or charity. 

 

And no, I would not say it is the same thing as what you laid out, since MLB owners are billionaires by rule (restaurant and small business owners not so much) and baseball teams by nature have extremely variable spending patterns. The Twins for example were slated to spend about $60M (70%) more on payroll in 2020 than they did in 2014. Do you think they were planning on 70% more revenue?

 

In any case, I don't think it's appropriate to treat this situation like business as usual. To be frank, I believe that ultra-rich people and billionaires should be making sacrifices in all phases of society right now. I understand that baseball players are also generally quite rich, but much less so, and they are assuming ALL OF THE RISK in this scenario. 

 

If you disagree with my basic philosophy here that's fine, but it's how I feel. 

[In My La Z boy]

If the plan becomes an 82 game regular season, and they keep it within the current divisions, then I think it sets up a legit season. Add 1 wild card to each league, with the 2 best records in each league getting 1st round byes to somewhat compensate for the 1/2 season - and I think you get virtually the same teams making the playoffs, as would have otherwise.
As to player compensation - Diehardtwinsfan has it for 2020 - revenue sharing. MLB should set the total salaries number as a percent of revenue, just like the NBA - once the percentage is set - then each team can give each player their percentage of the teams percentage. 

[Vanimal46]

A very good thread relating to this topic. I’ve consistently been pessimistic about baseball and other sports happening this season. There are several reasons why below.

 

[MN_ExPat]

I guess I just want to see baseball being played again.  In many ways I don't really care how they play it (division formats or league setup that is) or where, I just want to watch baseball again.

 

It will probably not be the same if there is no minor league ball, but I understand (if only a logical level) as to the logistics involved getting them off the ground may be too difficult at the moment to pull off.

 

Until my son and his HS teammates are allowed to retake the field (really hoping the rumors of summer ball in GA starting up again soon are true because in my mind there is little better than seeing HS and college kids play their hearts out ) I'll have to hold on to the possible reality that we will see our beloved Twins soon 

[ossieO]

An 80-game season starting in early July would have the expanded playoffs starting in early October.  Seems like this proposal doesn't include the extended regular season and November playoffs that have been floated.  Although with expanded playoffs, the World Series might still finish in November.

I wonder if planners are concerned about a predicted 2nd wave of COVID in the fall, and believe extending the regular season through October makes it less likely the season is completed without interruption.

[ashbury]

How many times in the past did the Twins (along with basically every other team) pocket extra revenue amidst a "rebuilding" year, without ever reinvesting that money into future teams? Why can't it swing the other way for a change?

 

I'm dubious of whether teams are actually going to lose money by paying full salaries (there's a lot of distributed national media money you're not accounting for) but even if they do I'm not all that sympathetic. 

Concur. The rationale for why players don't get an even bigger share of the pie than they do, is that "the owners incur all the risk." So now in 2020, out of the blue and without warning, the risk turns into an actual decrease in revenue that may have lasting implications or may sort itself out by 2021. Instead of covering the shortfall, the talk is immediately about give-backs, and plenty of fans are on-board with the billionaires, whom they can identify with so much more readily than with the millionaires.

 

 

What exactly is the value-proposition the owners bring to the table, again? They are acting like glorified CPAs, informing the players how the books look. Accountants aren't generally the highest paid employees in an organization.

[Nick Nelson]

Via Rosenthal: "MLB revenue-sharing plan is a non-starter for the Players Association"

 

https://theathletic.com/1806964/2020/05/11/mlb-revenue-sharing-plan-is-a-nonstarter-for-the-players-association/

[DocBauer]

FINANCIALLY: I take no sides. Just using basic logic, as I stated in a sister thread, a percentage of something is better than all of nothing. I side with baseball and it's health and future, and don't choose to pick a side. But to just say billionaire owners will be fine with losses is a poor and destructive arguement. Do these billionaire owners have no other businesses,and employees who are not affected by covid? Do these billionaire owners just have stacks of liquid cash to just dispense as they will? The answer is no.

 

MLB is a business, an elite business and franchise to be sure, but still a business. And like any business, big or small, it is being impacted by the pandemic. The players deserve to be paid. As do the coaches, clubhouse attendants and everyone else involved. And if you own a franchise, there is absolutely an obligation to your product and your employees. But just dishing out millions of $ to ballplayers for a partial season at full season rate is also not logical or responsible for the sake of the franchise, it's stability or the stability of MLB as a whole. There needs to be a compromise that makes sense for both sides.

 

Someone brought up a year in which ALL teams do a universal profit sharing system to make this work. Agreed 100%. For the good of the game it makes sense and SHOULD to everyone involved.

 

ON THE FIELD: I've heard 100G season and 80G season. I've also seen ridiculous re-alignment options to save money. The various divisions/conferences are already perfectly set, with the EXCEPTION some teams may simply not be allowed to play at home. That is the LEAST of the logistical or financial issues involved.

 

Each team plays their own division opponents in 6 3 game series home and away. That's 72 games. You then play your cross league region for a pair of 3 game home and away series for a total of 24 games. Add it up and you have a 96 game season.

 

PLAYOFFS: For 2020, if not beyond, you have 6 playoff teams in each league. The top division winners by record get a bye. The other 4 teams play a 3 game series to move on to the next 5 game round before a traditional 7 game WS.

 

MILB: While some ML teams may be forced to play elsewhere other than home parks, including their ST facilities, at least initially, there is no reason milb can't have their own 60-80 game season playing a variation of the Cactus and Grapefruit league for further savings. The MLB and milb season both commence.

 

The devil is in the details when it comes to the safety logistics to make all of this work. But assuming for a moment this is worked out, the singular important piece is the financial/sharing/pro-rated $ aspect of a ML season. After that, this just really isn't that hard.

 

Not sure i want the job, but when do I get to step in to Manfred's job, or at least become his chief advisor, lol?

[Tom Froemming]

Proposing to base salaries off revenues is a joke. I'm shocked the owners have the nerve to even go public with this. 

[Trov]

From the proposal submitted by MLB I do not expect players to agree today.  I think they will come to an agreement, but as the players union president stated, the 50/50 split is a salary cap, something that has been sneaking into baseball with luxury tax, but players have been against since FA started.  So they will not just say yes.  However, if the alternative is no money, that is hard to swallow for players.  Sure many would be able to survive for a year without getting paid, if they planned ahead.  Not many people expecting to get paid plan to not too though. 

 

For the people that just want the owners to pay full prorated contracts and most likely lose millions of upon millions of dollars, because they can afford to, you most likely have never owned a successful business.  The owners do not own teams because they are willing to lose money.  Sure, some owners make so much money with other business and willing to just break even for wins, but those are also when owned by single owners.  Most teams are owned by groups with a main owner.  Many of the minority owners will not say, hey it is fine if I lose millions this year.  Business do not live long if being operated in red for extended periods.  

 

I think both the players and owners should think about the "regular employees" that need the paycheck and what a full no season would like for them.  Already, many employees are not working and won't work even if a season does start with no fans.  Many teams have agreed to pay these people for now, but for how long?  If owners need to pay players more that may make employees get laid off.

 

Overall, the owners always hold all the power.  They can just say no season no one gets paid go find a day job, to the non-superstars that have already been paid.  It always comes down to the owners on if baseball happens.  They do it for money, not charity.  They do it get our money to put in their pockets.  They need the players to have a product, but this day in age, this is not the owners main source of income, but a side job.  Players have grabbed a lot of power for themselves with having no salary cap, but the owners could shut it down completely if they wanted to.  

 

I am not saying either side is right or wrong to want what they want.  I am just point out who has the real power, but as these two side fight over money, it affects many people that need their paychecks.  Owners want to make money, so do the players.  For that to happen they need each other. 

[Twodogs]

The faster the owners get their product back on the market the more future income they could have if they draw new fans in that can't watch their normal sports that they like??

[In My La Z boy]

 

Proposing to base salaries off revenues is a joke. I'm shocked the owners have the nerve to even go public with this. 

Agreed, but that is the owners plan according to today's report they are submitting to the White House and to the Players association. It would be a sad day if it is money that stops the season rather than the virus. 

[SkyBlueWaters]

One big wild card in the owners v. players association negotiations is playoff revenue. It's a significant slice of the revenue pie.

 

If a second wave of the virus hits (likely), and if players are infected (who knows?), that could mean canceling the playoffs.

 

Not that I have much sympathy for the billionaire owners, but if they guarantee contracts, and playoff revenue isn't then realized ...

 

Why, some of them might have to shop in the same places I do. (Naw, probably not.)

 

It will be interesting to learn how the negotiations proceed--or fail. You'd think with all the money on the table they could work something out, but it isn't a done deal.

 

I also get the sense the next CBA lurks in the background.

[Major League Ready]

 

How many times in the past did the Twins (along with basically every other team) pocket extra revenue amidst a "rebuilding" year, without ever reinvesting that money into future teams? Why can't it swing the other way for a change?

 

I'm dubious of whether teams are actually going to lose money by paying full salaries (there's a lot of distributed national media money you're not accounting for) but even if they do I'm not all that sympathetic. 

 

I spent 25 years evaluating strategies for large companies.  Never did one base their expectation or desire for profits on previous earnings,  That concept gets batted around frequently by fans but it has no basis in reality in the real world.  We could make the same type of statement about players.  Their compensation is absurd relative to the rest of the world and we have no problem when they look to maximize their earnings.  Somehow the same logic is not followed when assessing the actions of owners.

[USAFChief]

I simply cant get behind the players on this.

 

The entire world is hurting, unemployment in the US is at great depression levels, and players are going to argue over compensation?

 

Shame on them.

[glunn]

I don't know who deserves to be shamed here, because I don't know the numbers.

 

When parties are at an impasse, sometimes the solution is to expand the deal. Revenue sharing seems to work in other sports. Maybe the answer is to go to revenue sharing for three years, perhaps with the players getting 55% this year, then 53% next year and then 50% the following year.  .

 

Another solution would be for the owners to give any profits for this season to the players. This would make sense to me as an owner, because otherwise I will probably be facing a loss. In one of the worst years ever, if I were an owner I would consider any deal that allows me to merely break even. And an owner facing a $10 million loss would still be better off with a $5 million loss. 

 

I wish that we knew the numbers. I hope that the owners are sharing their projections with the players. If not, then shame on the owners.

 

 

[Major League Ready]

 

I don't know who deserves to be shamed here, because I don't know the numbers.

 

When parties are at an impasse, sometimes the solution is to expand the deal. Revenue sharing seems to work in other sports. Maybe the answer is to go to revenue sharing for three years, perhaps with the players getting 55% this year, then 53% next year and then 50% the following year.  .

 

Another solution would be for the owners to give any profits for this season to the players. This would make sense to me as an owner, because otherwise I will probably be facing a loss. In one of the worst years ever, if I were an owner I would consider any deal that allows me to merely break even. And an owner facing a $10 million loss would still be better off with a $5 million loss. 

 

I wish that we knew the numbers. I hope that the owners are sharing their projections with the players. If not, then shame on the owners.

 

Bravo! Finally someone looking at this logically rather than emotionally.  I was listening to MLB radio yesterday and they were waxing on about how the players should not have to take anything less than full compensation. My first thought was along the same lines as your first sentence. Passing judgment without even knowing the numbers demonstrates a point of view developed from bias. Normally, we could estimate revenue pretty accurately.  In this case, we don’t know when or if fans will be allowed to return.  The Twins TV Revenue is roughly $40M/yr or roughly 15% of last year’s revenue.  Of course, there are other sources outside of attendance but gate receipts have to be in the neighborhood of two-thirds of the team’s revenue.  No fans equates to total revenue of less than $50M for the Twins.  Am I missing something?

 

Half of player salaries would be $70M plus whatever it costs for travel and other operating costs.  There is no chance owners are going to accept an agreement that potentially increases what they have already lost this year.  I don’t think the player’s hang-up is the 50% number. Best case scenario is fans return in limited number for what would be the last quarter of the season. Accepting a revenue split would mean players would very likely take a substantial pay cut. From an owner’s perspective, it is highly unlikely a 50% revenue share will produce any profit.  I would assume their desire to play this year is motivated by long-term concerns starting with maintaining fan support.

[Nick Nelson]

 

I simply cant get behind the players on this.

The entire world is hurting, unemployment in the US is at great depression levels, and players are going to argue over compensation?

Shame on them.

From their perspective, the deal they agreed to has been changed. Why is this on them and not the owners? 

These players are human beings. They have no obligation to put their health and safety at risk for you, me, or anyone else if they don't deem the financial benefits worthwhile.  

[Major League Ready]

 

From their perspective, the deal they agreed to has been changed. Why is this on them and not the owners? 

These players are human beings. They have no obligation to put their health and safety at risk for you, me, or anyone else if they don't deem the financial benefits worthwhile.  

 

I think you are right. Perhaps players should be allowed to opt out of this season if they don't want to assume the risk. Let MiLB players fill those spots. However, to say the owners should just eat whatever losses come from playing this season while players are guaranteed 100% of their normal compensation is an exceptionally prejudiced thought process.

 

Just a thought ... There are a hole lot of people happy to go back to work for 1% of what the average MLB player earns.

[Nick Nelson]

 

I think you are right. Perhaps players should be allowed to opt out of this season if they don't want to assume the risk. Let MiLB players fill those spots. However, to say the owners should just eat whatever losses come from playing this season while players are guaranteed 100% of their normal compensation is an exceptionally prejudiced thought process.

 

Just a thought ... There are a hole lot of people happy to go back to work for 1% of what the average MLB player earns.

Would they be happy to go back for 1% of what they earn? Even if their very comfortable bosses/ownership could easily afford to pay their full salaries and be just fine? Because that's the more pertinent hypothetical here. 

 

MLB owners would (maybe) be taking a loss in the short-term but they're still boosting the value of the team and league in which they have equity. Players don't share in that benefit. Again, I have serious gripes with the idea that cash influxes (like the huge media deals of the past decade) go basically straight to owners, yet players have to share the burden of an unexpected lull.

[Major League Ready]

 

Would they be happy to go back for 1% of what they earn? Even if their very comfortable bosses/ownership could easily afford to pay their full salaries and be just fine? Because that's the more pertinent hypothetical here. 

 

MLB owners would (maybe) be taking a loss in the short-term but they're still boosting the value of the team and league in which they have equity. Players don't share in that benefit. Again, I have serious gripes with the idea that cash influxes (like the huge media deals of the past decade) go basically straight to owners, yet players have to share the burden of an unexpected lull.

 

I guess I should not be surprised to see a fanatical response. Who is asking them to go back for "1% of what they earn". We get it ... your point of view is that players should not suffer at all as a result of a pandemic. Owner should just accept losses no matter how massive. The owners offer is perfectly reasonable.

 

I don't expect the owners to incur even larger loses than they would by just cancelling the season. So, If rejected, I hope the league offers any player who wants to play the chance to play at the rate offered and then use replacement players to fill the roster. If you don't want to play, their are plenty of MiLB players who would love the shot.

[Nick Nelson]

 

I guess I should not be surprised to see a fanatical response. Who is asking them to go back for "1% of what they earn". We get it ... your point of view is that players should not suffer at all as a result of a pandemic. Owner should just accept losses no matter how massive. The owners offer is perfectly reasonable.

 

I don't expect the owners to incur even larger loses than they would by just cancelling the season. So, If rejected, I hope the league offers any player who wants to play the chance to play at the rate offered and then use replacement players to fill the roster. If you don't want to play, their are plenty of MiLB players who would love the shot.

Not suffer at all?? Do you understand these are people, with families, being sent into a hazardous, awkward and confining situation for months? No matter the precautions or systems MLB implements, players and personnel will be putting themselves at risk, while owners watch from their comfy mansions.

 

There is more to the world than money, and people in all walks of life are coming to terms with that right now.

 

I'm perfectly fine with an opt-in season. I'll watch. I just don't think any players should feel obligated to participate and I don't think it should count as an official MLB season of record. I have been clear & consistent with this view for over a month.